Duplicate boards for playing whist, auction bridge and now contract bridge have been known for approximately one hundred years, examples of which may be found in the patented literature. By the aid of duplicate boards, bridge hands can be preserved for subsequent play at another table. This is made possible first, by playing the cards in "duplicate style", namely, by each player retaining his own played cards, turning them face down as played in his own stack or row and, second, by each player returning his played hand to a corresponding pocket in the duplicate boards. The board is then passed to the next table. Ultimately, a comparison can be made to determine which pair performed better with given cards.
Over the years, the format for a session of duplicate bridge in medium or large tournaments has become standardized. One of the factors is that a bridge session of three hours is too short, and one of four hours is too fatiguing. The standard session is, then, three and one-half hours. To accommodate a session of about three and one-half hours, the field is broken down into "sections" (usually lettered) of thirteen to sixteen or seventeen tables each. At the start of the session, two duplicate boards are placed at each table and the cards, if not predealt, are then dealt by the players.
Since it takes about fifteen or sixteen minutes to play two boards (bridge hands), thirteen rounds of play provide about three and one-half hours of entertainment or competition. After each round, that is to say, the playing of the two boards, the East-West players move to the next table in the section in one direction, while the boards are moved to the next table in the opposite direction. If more than thirteen tables are in the section, there are still but thirteen rounds, in which, North-South pairs will not play all East-West pairs and vice versa; and not all of the boards in the section will be played.
Just how many tables there may be in a section depends upon chance if entries are taken up to the starting time of the event on an open entry basis. If attendance is miscalculated, sections may be added or deleted at the last moment. Thus, instructions may be dispatched for all those in section F to return to the entry station for reassignment to tables in sections A, B, C, D and E; or instructions may be dispatched for those assigned to tables 15 and 16 in sections A, B, C, D, E and F to return to the entry station for reassignment to new section G. This is done in order to keep the section size to a working maximum of sixteen or seventeen. The working size is so limited for several reasons. One reason is to ensure that all players play essentially (more or less) the same set of boards so that the same reasonably fair comparison can ultimately be made across the entire field. Another reason is that a single scorer is ordinarily assigned the task of scoring one section. If the section is too large, the task of tabulating scores from pickup slips to a master sheet and then match pointing and cumulating becomes burdensome to the point where results are delayed and/or accuracy is compromised. A competent scorer should, with the assistance of one helper or caddy, complete the scoring task within thirty minutes following the final round of play.
Computerized scoring has long been proposed in order to improve accuracy and speed. The most obvious systems utilize humans to read the pickup slips and to key punch the information thereon into the computer. Such a system was demonstrated, for example, by Minneapolis Honeywell for a large tournament held in the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles, Calif., in August, 1962. While accuracy and speed may be improved by such key punch systems, there is no cost advantage, since as much human effort is required during the bridge session to key punch information as to post manually.
In order to circumvent the key punch step, I proposed systems whereby players encoded a set of data cards corresponding to the bridge hands or boards. Thus, each duplicate board carried its own data card. In one such system, a binary punch and dial was provided at each table such as shown, for example, in my U.S. Pat. No. 3,364,339 issued Jan. 16, 1968 and entitled MATCH POINT DUPLICATE BRIDGE SCORER. In another such system, a mark sense card was provided as shown, for example, in U.S. Pat. No. 3,236,523 of Clyde R. Stein issued Feb. 22, 1966, whereby use of a bulky punch mechanism was unnecessary. In both cases, the bridge scores remain with the duplicate board until the session is over, whereupon the cards are processed. It is essential that the scores be concealed from view at least until the board is played. In order to conceal the scores, Stein shows resilient concealer strips that snap into position beneath ledges or into slots to overlie discrete spaces of the data card.
Undoubtedly, a mark sense system is superior to a punch mechanism since mark sense requires only a pencil. However, partial prepunch makes it possible to use a simple stylus, obviating a punch mechanism. Yet, for purposes of making corrections, an eraser is simpler than positive patchwork. Problems with the mark sense system of the Stein patent are that the card itself is hard to read (which is conducive to error by the players) and that the card is quite large. Since the card itself is large, the duplicate board that holds it is correspondingly large, about two or three times the size of a present day standard aluminum duplicate board. A great deal of playing room is consumed. The card requires a special reader. Thus, standard readers have twelve read heads spaced on quarter inch centers for feed through line by line reading of a card three and one-quarter inches wide. The Stein duplicate board is expensive to mold and assemble and the concealer strips are hard to manipulate, gather and retain.
The primary object of the present invention is to provide a practical mark sense system for duplicate bridge scoring utilizing a standard or near standard data card, three and one-quarter inches wide, with twelve mark areas compatable with read heads on quarter inch centers. Once a readable card format is devised, other objects are accomplished: a compact and relatively inexpensive card holder can be provided for attachment to the back of a standard duplicate board. Extra table space is not needed.
Another object of this invention is to provide improved card holders that neatly and efficiently hold a data card and which conceal scores previously applied by strips or tabs permanently attached to the holder.
Another object of this invention is to provide a new exceptionally readable type style that itself locates the areas to be marked without requiring guide blocks.